Freedom Villages Regenerative Community
Liberate, Not Incarcerate. Build Homes, Not Prisons.
A proposed community of 30 solar-powered, rainwater-fed, resident-built homes, designed to be governed by and owned by the people who live in them.
Lifers Hope Foundation · California 501(c)(3) · Los Angeles County · lifershopefoundation.org
Design phase: seeking partners, a pilot site, and funding. Programs are not yet active.
Release Is Not the Finish Line. It Is Where the Barriers Begin.
of people released in 34 states were rearrested within 5 years (62% within 3 years). BJS, 2021.
estimated yearly cost of mass incarceration to governments and families. Prison Policy Initiative, 2026.
what California spends to incarcerate one person for a year. CA LAO, 2025-26.
saved in reduced incarceration costs during the first three years after release, for every $1 invested in correctional education. RAND, 2013.
People come home to the same barriers: no job, no home, no savings. A revolving door is not a personal failure. It is a system.
FVRC is built to turn that door into a pathway.
Pilot target: ≤15% rearrest within 12 months.
Statistics are externally published facts and evidence; FVRC pilot figures are targets, not results.
Learning From Proven Peer Models
The pilot's targets are benchmarked on work-based reentry programs.
Delancey Street Foundation (San Francisco, since 1971): graduates, self-reported. No government funding or paid professional staff.
Homeboy Industries: a work-based reentry program the pilot draws on as a peer benchmark.
Center for Employment Opportunities: lower chances of arrest, conviction, and reincarceration among participants who enrolled within three months of release (MDRC randomized trial, 2012). Employment gains faded after the first year.
Only the CEO result comes from a randomized trial. That is why our pilot is independently evaluated.
Sources and details in the appendix. Program-reported figures are not independently verified.
Freedom Villages: A Community to Be Built by the People Who Will Live In It
A proposed regenerative ecosystem, designed to be built and governed by residents.
Self-Built
Designed so residents build the homes they live in.
Regenerative
Designed around rooftop solar, rainwater capture, and food gardens, aiming toward energy, water, and food independence.
Self-Governed
Residents govern through a resident-led Community Circle, with real decision-making power over community life, program design, and budget priorities, within boundaries approved by the nonprofit board.
Mission: Build the careers, homes, savings, and ownership that turn reentry into a pathway to sovereignty.
Purpose: Test, through an independently evaluated pilot, whether a resident-built, resident-governed community can replace the revolving door, and create the evidence that can inform policy.
Careers · Homes · Savings · Ownership. Not a liability. An untapped reservoir of talent and determination.
Energy, water, and food targets are subject to site feasibility and pilot validation.
What Freedom Villages Looks Like
Illustrative renderings of the design, not photographs of a completed site.
In Their Words
What the senior panel said when Arthur Agustin presented FVRC at the USC Phi Alpha Annual Research Symposium.
"Such transformational and impactful mission and vision! Thank you for your leadership and work with such underserved population with your heart and soul. Bravo!"
Senior panel, USC Phi Alpha Research Symposium, March 2026
"Really impressive, feasible project! All the best with this work."
Senior panel, USC Phi Alpha Research Symposium, March 2026
"Beautiful ideas and this is possible! Thank you Arthur."
Senior panel, USC Phi Alpha Research Symposium, March 2026
"My journey was a crucible where suffering forged a profound sense of meaning. It is my deepest aspiration to ignite this possibility for every soul touched by incarceration — to help them transform their past into a powerful future."
— Arthur Agustin, Founder
Led by Lived Experience, Checked by Independent Oversight
Led by lived experience, supported by academic review and independent oversight.
Arthur Agustin, Founder
Lived the system: two California prison terms (CDCR), including San Quentin and Pelican Bay. USC Master of Social Work graduate and registered ASW. Selected for a Psychiatric Social Worker I position with the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, pending completion of county processing. Author of New Beginnings.
Dr. Suzanne DeBenedittis, Greenerway Associates
Reviewed the New Beginnings model that informs this work.
Fiscal Oversight Officer, Independent CPA
Oversees pilot funds. To be named at launch.
Independent Evaluator
Doctoral-level researcher or university partner, independent of Lifers Hope. To be confirmed.
Governance: the nonprofit board holds legal and fiduciary responsibility. Residents govern through the Community Circle, within board-approved boundaries.
Seeking board members and advisors with expertise in nonprofit governance, housing development, construction, finance, law, evaluation, and reentry, plus an experienced housing and construction lead. Board members and advisors will be listed as they join.
Test It First. Then Build the Village.
Month 1 · Launch
Sign the MOU, retain counsel, start zoning review and land-trust setup, and confirm in writing that the apprenticeship partner approves wages, supervision, and eligible build hours before construction begins.
Build
6 Builder-Founders seek apprenticeships and build 2 modular showcase homes to union standards.
Showcase
The 2 homes are presented publicly.
Month 12 · Evaluate and decide
Independent evaluation completes against pre-specified definitions. Phase II is decided only after it.
Then · The 30-home village
30 participants move through four semesters: pre-apprenticeship and OSHA 10, homes and solar, water and food, governance. Graduates become founding residents and join the Community Builders Cooperative, with a resident-led Community Circle and a Community Land Trust.
Proposed framework. Timing of middle stages to be confirmed with partners. Depends on pilot authorization, partner approval, and site and financing confirmation.
A Feasibility Pilot, Deliberately Narrow
Phase I tests one loop well before anything is scaled.
Phase I tests
- Whether people can move from MC-3 pre-apprenticeship into registered apprenticeship by building 2 homes
- Whether the apprenticeship partner approves wages, supervision, and eligible build hours, and the hours count
- Whether savings build for every participant and housing stays stable
- Whether the Cooperative can win contracts, and whether lending and land-trust terms can be designed and supported
- Outcomes measured independently against pre-specified definitions
Held for Phase II and beyond
- The 30-home village and village-scale resident governance
- Rainwater capture, food gardens, and permaculture at village scale
- Replication across California and beyond
- Policy change
Six participants can show whether the model works in practice. They cannot, alone, establish statistical effects or change policy.
Phase II is decided only after the independent evaluation.
A Union-Pathway Model: What Each Side Gains
WHAT PARTICIPANTS GAIN
- Eligible build hours designed to count toward apprenticeship requirements, subject to partner approval
- A pathway to journey-level status, with wages that scale from an entry-level target ($20–$26/hr) to journeyman ($40–$55/hr). Preliminary LHF targets informed by California prevailing-wage determinations (CA DIR); actual wages vary by trade, county, and agreement.
WHAT BUILDING TRADES PARTNERS GAIN
- Pre-screened, motivated apprentices
- Documented training hours
- A diverse pipeline from underrepresented communities
- Community goodwill and public partnership
- A replicable model that scales to a 30-home village
The trades need a motivated, pre-screened pipeline. FVRC needs a credentialing path to portable, living-wage careers.
Preliminary targets. Partnership structure is in development; no agreement is in place until established in writing.
From Release Day to a Deed
An illustrative composite of the design, not a real participant.
Most reentry programs end with a handshake and a bus ticket. FVRC is designed to end with a deed.
Release day
MC-3 pre-apprenticeship starts with no gap, plus OSHA 10 safety certification and a Unity Protocol mentoring pair with a young adult aged 21–25.
Selected and paid
Top graduates are chosen to build the village and are paid from the day they are selected, learning on the job in electrical, solar, drywall, roofing, masonry, and rainwater systems.
Save
10% of every paycheck builds in a trust account, and credit-union membership starts early.
Down payment and mortgage
At journey-level completion, trust fund savings become the down payment on their unit, and the remaining balance converts into a mortgage that builds credit.
Stay affordable and lead
A Community Land Trust keeps the home affordable. Graduates join the Community Circle and mentor the next group.
A graduate who leaves keeps their accrued savings, as the plan is designed to ensure.
Illustrative: 10% of entry-level wages ($20–$26/hr) over a 3-year apprenticeship saves about $12.5K–$16.2K per participant, before wage progression (projection).
Savings alone may not close the gap to a down payment. The financing design will likely need subsidies or specialized mortgage products, to be developed with lenders and legal counsel.
Participants don't receive this future. They build it.
Design-phase concept. Trust account structure, ground lease terms, and legal and lending terms are still being developed.
What It Costs, and Where the Funding Comes From
Phase I: 12-month pilot, 6 Builder-Founders, 2 showcase homes, independent evaluation.
Estimated cost per home. Excludes land, site work, and permits.
Preliminary vertical-construction estimate for 30 units only (30 × the per-home range), decided after evaluation. Not total development cost: excludes land, infrastructure, site work, permits, professional services, common facilities, financing costs, and contingency.
Phase I is designed to be shared across several funders, and we are seeking them now. Phase II funding is to be identified; Measure H, AB 109, SB 678, and HUD are potential sources only, and none is secured.
Fund the start. The community funds the rest.
No funding is committed and nothing begins until the anchor MOU is signed. Figures are preliminary planning estimates.
What the Pilot Will Test About the Loop
Phase I is a feasibility and implementation pilot: six participants can show whether the model works in practice, not establish statistical effects. An independent evaluator will report on every measure, including any shortfalls. These are targets, not results.
job retention
rearrest within 12 months
housing stability
living-wage target at entry-level apprentice
Also tested: savings, build hours, Cooperative contracts, and lending and land-trust terms (details in the appendix).
If it works, we scale. If it doesn't, we learn.
What Could Go Wrong, and What Comes Next
Key risks and how we manage them
- Delays (site, zoning, partners): confirm site, zoning, placement, and interim housing before enrollment; no commitment until the anchor MOU is signed.
- Apprenticeship approval: wages, supervision, and eligible build hours must be confirmed in writing by the apprenticeship partner before construction begins.
- Ownership financing: trust-account, land-trust, resale, and mortgage terms need legal and financial design, and savings alone may not close the gap; subsidies or specialized mortgage products will likely be needed.
- Funding shortfall: multiple funders and an independent CPA oversee funds; scope is set to the confirmed budget.
- Participants leaving: mentoring pairs, behavioral-health support, and paid work from selection.
Test it in LA. Then spread.
- ★ First · LA County: a 12-month Prototype Pilot, then the 30-home village, decided only after the independent evaluation.
- Later · California: replicate in more LA County and California sites, pursuing funding. Aspirational; no site counts committed.
- Beyond · Nationwide: an aspiration to share the blueprint so other communities can build their own.
No expansion happens until the evidence says it should.
Illustrative map of aspirational expansion, not confirmed sites. Expansion depends on pilot results, funding, and written partner agreements.
The pilot design is ready to test. The verdict is next.
Fund
Fund the 12-month Prototype Pilot with $500K–$1M.
Partner
Take a defined role: site, apprenticeship, reentry, funding, evaluation, or oversight. One signed MOU starts the clock.
Connect
[email protected] (funding and partnerships) · [email protected] (join or support) · lifershopefoundation.org
You are not being asked to fund an untested 30-home development. You are funding a disciplined feasibility pilot that determines whether the model is ready to scale.
What happens when release comes with a pathway?
No funding is committed and nothing begins until the anchor MOU is signed.
Your Questions, Answered Plainly
Every hard question, answered without spin.
What is FVRC?
Freedom Villages Regenerative Community: a proposed community of 30 modular homes for 30 participants, designed to be built, governed, and owned by its residents. Not a halfway house. Not a shelter.
How is it different from other reentry programs?
Most reentry programs fix one piece. FVRC connects careers, housing, savings, ownership, and support in one pathway.
Is it operating today?
No. It is in the design phase, seeking partners, a pilot site, and funding. Programs and intake are not yet active.
Who is behind it?
Lifers Hope Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (filed June 2025) and IRS-recognized 501(c)(3) (September 2025), founded by Arthur Agustin, who lived the system and is a USC MSW graduate and registered ASW.
Who is it for?
People preparing for release, returning citizens, and their families. The pilot starts with 3 people with lived experience and 3 young adults aged 21–25. The village would serve 30 formerly incarcerated adults and young adults, all 21+.
What is a Builder-Founder?
One of the 6 pilot participants (3 former Lifers and 3 young adults aged 21–25) who seek apprenticeships and build the 2 showcase homes. The apprenticeship partner selects them, and each is paired with a mentoring partner through the Unity Protocol.
Homes, Ownership, and the Land Trust
How does a participant earn ownership?
Participants are paid, and 10% of every paycheck is saved in a trust account. Savings become a down payment at journey-level completion, the balance becomes a credit-building mortgage, and a Community Land Trust keeps the home affordable. Legal and lending terms are still being developed.
How much could a participant save?
Illustratively, 10% of entry-level wages ($20–$26/hr) over a 3-year apprenticeship saves about $12.5K–$16.2K, before wage progression (projection, not a forecast). Savings alone may not close the gap to a down payment; the financing design will likely need subsidies or specialized mortgage products, developed with lenders and legal counsel.
When could a participant buy?
Eligibility comes at journey-level completion, which depends on the trade. For example, the carpenter apprentice schedule is about 5,200 on-the-job hours, roughly 2.5 years full-time (CA DIR).
What if a graduate leaves?
A graduate who leaves keeps their accrued savings, as the plan is designed to ensure.
What does a Community Land Trust do, and is it stable?
A nonprofit holds the land and the resident owns the home, with resale limits that keep it affordable. In a 2011 Lincoln Institute survey of 62 CLTs, 1.30% of mortgages were seriously delinquent versus 8.57% conventionally (end of 2010). FVRC's ground lease terms are still being developed.
What will the homes look like and cost?
The renderings are illustrative; final unit types and sizes will be set with partners. The estimate is $80K–$120K per home, excluding land, site work, and permits, to be validated through the pilot. Fully installed prefab ADUs in Los Angeles typically run about $160K–$450K.
Work, Wages, and Apprenticeship
What is MC-3?
The Multi-Craft Core Curriculum, a standardized 120-hour pre-apprenticeship course from North America's Building Trades Unions that includes OSHA 10 and CPR. In the FVRC design it starts on release day, with no gap.
Are participants paid?
Yes. The plan has five paid stages, and top graduates are paid workers from the day they are selected, with placement confirmed by the apprenticeship partner.
Which trades do participants learn?
On the job in electrical, solar, drywall, roofing, masonry, and rainwater systems.
What will participants earn?
Preliminary targets of $20–$26/hr at entry level, scaling to $40–$55/hr at journeyman. In Los Angeles County, a carpenter apprentice's first-period basic wage is $21.97/hr and a carpenter journeyperson's is $52.24/hr (CA DIR). Actual wages vary by trade, county, and agreement.
Do build hours count toward an apprenticeship?
They are designed to, subject to partner approval. The pilot tests whether they do.
Is there a union agreement?
Not yet. The partnership structure is in development, and no agreement is in place until established in writing. Trades partners would gain pre-screened apprentices, documented training hours, a diverse pipeline, community goodwill, and a replicable model.
The Pilot and the Evidence
What are you asking for now, and what does it fund?
$500K–$1M for a 12-month Prototype Pilot: 6 Builder-Founders, 2 modular showcase homes built to union standards, a public showcase, and independent evaluation. One signed MOU starts the clock.
How will we know it works?
An independent evaluator reports against pre-specified definitions on every measure, including shortfalls. Targets: 85% job retention, ≤15% rearrest within 12 months, 100% housing stability, and a $20–$26/hr entry-level wage. These are targets, not results.
Who evaluates?
A doctoral-level researcher or university partner, independent of Lifers Hope. To be confirmed, and formalized in writing before launch.
How strong is the evidence?
The pilot's targets are benchmarked on peer programs. Only the CEO result (16 to 22 percent lower recidivism among those enrolled within three months of release) comes from a randomized trial; the others are program-reported. Phase I is a feasibility and implementation pilot: six participants can show whether the model works in practice and produce outcomes against pre-specified definitions, but they cannot establish statistically persuasive effects on rearrest or policy.
Does stable housing reduce rearrest?
The evidence is mixed. An Ohio permanent supportive housing program was associated with fewer rearrests within one year, while an Iowa study found mandatory halfway-house placement did not reduce reincarceration. FVRC is permanent housing tied to paid work, and the pilot tests it.
What if the pilot falls short?
The evaluator reports shortfalls openly. Phase II, the 30-home village, is decided only after the evaluation, and no expansion happens until the evidence says it should.
Money and Governance
How much does it cost?
Phase I: $500K–$1M for the 12-month pilot. Estimated cost per home: $80K–$120K, excluding land, site work, and permits. The site and land partner's role includes the pilot site, zoning, and interim housing; how each outside item is funded will be set out in the line-item budget. Phase II: $2.4M–$3.6M is a preliminary vertical-construction estimate for 30 units only (30 × the per-home range), decided only after evaluation; it is not total development cost and excludes land, infrastructure, site work, permits, professional services, common facilities, financing costs, and contingency. All are preliminary planning estimates.
Why isn't there a cost-per-participant figure?
A per-participant cost will be published once the line-item Phase I budget is developed. It would not be directly comparable to California's budgeted cost to incarcerate one person (about $128K, LAO 2025-26), which covers different categories.
Is any funding committed, and who pays?
No funding is committed, and nothing begins until the anchor MOU is signed. Phase I is designed to be shared across several funders. Phase II funding is to be identified; Measure H, AB 109, SB 678, and HUD are potential sources only, and none is secured.
Who oversees the money?
An independent CPA Fiscal Oversight Officer, to be named at launch, oversees pilot funds. Multiple funders share the cost, and scope is set to the confirmed budget.
Who governs the village?
Residents govern through a resident-led Community Circle, with real decision-making power over community life, program design, and budget priorities, within boundaries approved by the nonprofit board. The board keeps legal and fiduciary responsibility.
Are donations tax-deductible?
Lifers Hope Foundation is an IRS-recognized 501(c)(3), and contributions are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.
Partners, Policy, and Getting Involved
Who are the partners, and what do they do?
Five partners with defined roles: site and land (pilot site, zoning, interim housing); apprenticeship and labor (registered pathway, selects the first 6 Builder-Founders); pre-apprenticeship and reentry (runs the MC-3 program); funder and evaluator; and an independent CPA. Each role is formalized in writing before launch.
How can I get involved?
Fund the pilot, offer a site, apprenticeship, reentry, evaluation, or fiscal role, or lend your voice and skills. Write to [email protected] (funding and partnerships) or [email protected] (join or support).
Is membership the same as enrolling in the program?
No. Membership is not program enrollment, and programs and intake are not yet active. Sharing your background is optional.
What policy changes are you seeking?
A CDCR/DAPO MOU for a proposed referral pathway (none is signed), and a California policy pathway for community-governed, resident-built housing.
What are the biggest risks?
Delays in site, zoning, or partners; a funding shortfall; and participants leaving. Each has a mitigation: confirm site, zoning, placement, and interim housing before enrollment; multiple funders and an independent CPA; and mentoring pairs, behavioral-health support, and paid work from selection.
Will it expand beyond Los Angeles?
That is an aspiration, not a plan: first LA County, later California, then sharing the blueprint nationwide. No site counts are committed, and expansion depends on pilot results, funding, and written partner agreements.
Roles, Policy Moves, Funding, and What Else We Test
Every sector has a defined role, formalized in writing before launch
- Government & public agencies: site, zoning, referrals, funding programs
- Housing & land: land, financing, mortgage products
- Energy & water: systems, training, in-kind support
- Labor & workforce: apprenticeship pathway, job placement
- Funders & evaluators: Phase I funding, independent evaluation
- Community & individuals: voice, skills, and network
Two policy moves
- A CDCR/DAPO MOU for a proposed referral pathway
- A California policy pathway for community-governed, resident-built housing
Where the jump-start funding comes from
- Philanthropic and institutional funders: Phase I is designed to be shared across several funders. We are seeking them now.
- Public programs: Phase II funding is to be identified. May include Measure H, AB 109, SB 678, or HUD, if eligible. None secured. DOL's RESTART (FY2026 round closed April 15, 2026) is context, not an open source.
Also tested by the pilot
- Savings reach every participant
- Build hours count toward apprenticeship
- The Cooperative wins contracts, with revenue reinvested in the community (design concept)
- Lending and land-trust terms work
What Is in Place, and What Is Not Yet
In place
- California nonprofit public benefit corporation (filed June 26, 2025) and IRS-recognized 501(c)(3) (September 2025)
- Pilot design: 6 Builder-Founders, 2 showcase homes, a 12-month horizon, and pre-specified measures
- A founder with lived experience; the underlying model reviewed by Dr. Suzanne DeBenedittis, Greenerway Associates
- FVRC presented as a pre-implementation capstone proposal at the USC Phi Alpha Research Symposium, March 2026
Not yet in place
- Funding: none committed
- Anchor MOU: not yet signed; nothing begins until it is
- Pilot site, zoning, and interim housing: to be confirmed
- Partner agreements: none finalized; each role is formalized in writing before launch
- Fiscal Oversight Officer (independent CPA): to be named at launch
- Independent evaluator: to be confirmed
- Board members and advisors: to be listed as they join
- Programs and participant intake: not active
- Apprenticeship partner approval of wages, supervision, and eligible build hours: not yet obtained; the construction pathway depends on it
- Legal and financial design of the trust accounts, land trust, resale, and mortgage terms: in development
- An experienced housing and construction lead: to be recruited
The pilot design is ready and the institution is incorporated. Every open item is named.
How the Pilot Will Be Judged
Who evaluates
An independent evaluator: a doctoral-level researcher or university partner, independent of Lifers Hope. To be confirmed; the role is formalized in writing before launch.
What is measured
Against pre-specified definitions: 85% job retention, ≤15% rearrest within 12 months, 100% housing stability, and a $20–$26/hr entry-level living-wage target.
Also tested
Savings reach every participant; build hours count toward apprenticeship; the Cooperative wins contracts, with revenue reinvested (design concept); lending and land-trust terms work.
When and how it is reported
Independent evaluation completes at Month 12. The evaluator reports on every measure, including any shortfalls. Phase II is decided only after it.
Phase I is a feasibility and implementation pilot. Six participants can show whether the model works in practice; they cannot, alone, establish statistical effects on rearrest or policy.
These are targets, not results. If it works, we scale. If it doesn't, we learn.
What the Phase I Budget Covers, and What It Does Not
Phase I total: 12-month pilot, subject to pilot scope and site confirmation.
Two showcase homes at $80K–$120K each (simple arithmetic from the per-home estimate; excludes land, site work, and permits).
Inside the Phase I scope
- Paid work for the 6 Builder-Founders
- Two modular showcase homes
- Independent evaluation
- Independent CPA fiscal oversight
- Legal counsel, zoning review, and land-trust setup (Month 1)
Outside the per-home estimate
- Land
- Site work
- Permits
- Interim housing (the site and land partner's role includes the pilot site, zoning, and interim housing)
Open before launch: who funds site work and permits (site partner, in-kind contribution, or a budget line), the line-item amount for each category, and a contingency.
Preliminary allocation: the two homes are about 16%–48% of the $500K–$1M range (arithmetic from the per-home estimate). Percentage ranges for participant wages, evaluation, fiscal oversight, legal and zoning, and contingency will be added with the line-item budget.
Market context for validation: factory-built one-bedroom ADU units are listed from about $110K (unit only), and fully installed prefab ADUs in Los Angeles typically run about $160K–$450K. The per-home estimate will be validated through the pilot (see Supporting Evidence).
The line-item budget will be finalized with funders once the pilot scope and site are confirmed. All figures are preliminary planning estimates (projections), not forecasts.
Evidence Behind the Design Choices
Independent findings that support, and in one case complicate, the design. Each is labeled by type.
Work-based reentry can pay back [EVIDENCE]
Vera's cost-benefit analysis of CEO estimated $1.26 to $3.85 in benefits per $1 of cost, mostly from reduced criminal justice spending (MDRC/Vera, 2012).
Resale-restricted homeownership is stable [EVIDENCE]
In a Lincoln Institute survey of 62 community land trusts, 1.30% of CLT mortgages were seriously delinquent versus 8.57% in the conventional market, and 0.46% were in foreclosure versus 4.63% (end of 2010; survey-based; low-to-moderate-income owners; Thaden, 2011).
Housing helps, but the evidence is mixed [EVIDENCE]
An Ohio permanent supportive housing program was associated with fewer rearrests and reincarcerations within one year (quasi-experimental; Urban Institute, 2013). An Iowa study of mandatory halfway-house placement found no reduction in reincarceration (Lee, 2023). FVRC is permanent housing tied to paid work, not a halfway house, and the pilot tests it.
Wage targets sit within public determinations [FACT]
Los Angeles County: carpenter journeyperson basic $52.24/hr ($81.32 with benefits, DIR 2026-1); laborer journeyperson groups basic $46.48–$49.48/hr (2025-1); carpenter apprentice first period basic $21.97/hr ($40.47 with benefits, DIR 2026-2). Rates vary by trade and project date. The 2026-1 and earlier sets cited here have since been superseded; current determinations apply by project bid date.
MC-3 is a recognized standard [FACT]
NABTU's Multi-Craft Core Curriculum is a standardized 120-hour pre-apprenticeship course that includes OSHA 10 and CPR; the U.S. Department of Labor recognized it with its Registered Apprenticeship Innovator and Trailblazer Award (2012).
Construction cost context [CONTEXT]
Factory-built one-bedroom ADU units are listed from about $110K (unit only, wholesale, volume-discounted), and fully installed prefab ADUs in Los Angeles typically run about $160K–$450K, so the $80K–$120K per-home estimate must be validated through the pilot (vendor and industry listings, indicative only).
The FVRC Home: Illustrative Design
Proposed resident-built, solar-powered, permanent homes. Not transitional shelters.
Exterior: Resident-Built, Solar-Powered
Interior: Open-Plan Kitchen and Garden View
Exterior: Permanent Home, Built by Its Resident
Living Area: Warm, Minimal, Permanent
Bedroom: The First Room of Their Own
The Community: 30 Homes, One Community
Illustrative designs; final unit types and sizes will be set with partners.
Where Every Number Comes From
Each claim is labeled so facts, evidence, projections, and targets are never confused. A target is not a fact. A projection is not evidence.
FACT — externally verified data
EVIDENCE — published research
PROJECTION — LHF planning estimates
TARGET — pilot goals, not results
Facts and Evidence
- [FACT] Durose, M. R. & Antenangeli, L. (2021). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 34 States in 2012: A 5-Year Follow-Up Period (2012–2017). U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (62% rearrested within 3 years; 71% within 5.) https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/recidivism-prisoners-released-34-states-2012-5-year-follow-period-2012-2017 1.
- [FACT] Prison Policy Initiative (2026). Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2026. (At least $445B per year in estimated costs.) https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2026.html 2.
- [FACT] California Legislative Analyst's Office (2025-26 Budget). How Much Does It Cost to Incarcerate a Person? (2025-26 enacted budget: $127,788 per person per year, about $127,800.) https://www.lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost 3.
- [FACT] California Department of Industrial Relations. General prevailing wage determinations, issued twice a year (Feb 22 and Aug 22); apprentice rates apply to registered apprentices. Examples for Los Angeles County: carpenter journeyperson basic $52.24/hr, $81.32 with benefits (2026-1); laborer journeyperson groups basic $46.48–$49.48/hr (2025-1); carpenter apprentice first period basic $21.97/hr, $40.47 with benefits (2026-2, issued Aug 22, 2026). The $20–$26/hr entry-level and $40–$55/hr journeyman figures are Lifers Hope Foundation preliminary targets, in line with these basic hourly rates (total packages with benefits are higher), not rates stated on any page. Actual wages vary by trade, county, agreement, and project date. https://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/main.htm and https://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/PWAppWage/wage/26213100.html 4.
- [EVIDENCE] Davis, L. M. et al. (2013). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education. RAND Corporation. (43% lower odds of recidivating for participants; $4–5 saved in reduced incarceration costs per $1 invested during the first three years after release.) https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR266.html and RAND press release (the $4–5 per $1 figure) 5.
- [EVIDENCE] Peer program benchmarks: Delancey Street Foundation, Homeboy Industries, Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO), and MDRC, including MDRC's 'More Than a Job' (2012). Delancey Street was founded in 1971 by Dr. Mimi Silbert and John Maher with 4 residents and a $1,000 loan; it reports 18,000+ graduates (self-reported). MDRC found 16% to 22% lower chances of arrest, new convictions, and reincarceration among participants who enrolled within three months of release, with employment gains that faded after the first year. Only the MDRC/CEO evaluation is a randomized trial; the other figures are program-reported. Pilot targets are benchmarked on these programs; they are targets, not demonstrated results. https://www.delanceystreetfoundation.org/, Delancey Street (4 residents and a $1,000 loan in 1971; 18,000+ graduates, self-reported), and https://www.mdrc.org/work/publications/more-job 6.
- [FACT] Lifers Hope Foundation: California nonprofit public benefit corporation, filed June 26, 2025 (CA Secretary of State, document B20250183160); IRS tax-exempt 501(c)(3), ruling September 2025, EIN 33-3371668 (ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer). https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/333371668 7.
Projections and Targets
- [PROJECTION] Lifers Hope Foundation preliminary planning estimates: $80K–$120K per home (excludes land, site work, and permits) and a Phase I budget of $500K–$1M. A per-participant cost is withheld until the line-item budget is developed. To be validated through the pilot budget.
- [PROJECTION] Savings: 10% of entry-level wages ($20–$26/hr) × 2,080 hours/year × 3 years = about $12.5K–$16.2K, before wage progression.
- [PROJECTION] Illustrative arithmetic: 30 homes × $80K–$120K = $2.4M–$3.6M is a preliminary vertical-construction estimate for 30 units only, not total development cost (it excludes land, infrastructure, site work, permits, professional services, common facilities, financing costs, and contingency); $12.5K–$16.2K savings per participant. Neither is a forecast.
- [TARGET] Pilot goals: 85% job retention, ≤15% rearrest within 12 months, 100% housing stability, $20–$26/hr entry-level wage. An independent evaluator will report on every measure, including shortfalls.
- [CONTEXT] Public programs named on the funding slide (Measure H, AB 109, SB 678, HUD) are potential sources only; eligibility is unconfirmed and nothing is secured.
- [CONTEXT] Federal reentry funding: U.S. Department of Labor, RESTART Initiative, FOA-ETA-26-17 (FY2026 round closed April 15, 2026). About $81M expected total funding; application deadline April 15, 2026; the round is now closed, so it is context, not an open funding source. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/grants/2026%20PDFs/RESTART%20FOA-ETA-26-17.pdf
- Program details: Lifers Hope Foundation, lifershopefoundation.org
Quotes on the Community Voices slide are from the senior panel at the USC Phi Alpha Annual Research Symposium, March 2026, and from Arthur Agustin, Founder; they are provided by the organization and not independently verified. Team credentials are organization-reported. Linked sources were last checked on November 1, 2026. Peer-program photos on the Learning From the Field slide: Delancey Street (RealChange, TrustAnalytica), Homeboy Industries (homeboyindustries.org, Tripadvisor, The Family Savvy, Billy Penn), and CEO (ceoworks.org); used for illustration, and permission to use them should be confirmed.